Locke said:Abortion is clearly an act of murder. If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby and choosing to just kill it without giving the small child a chance to live is an absolutely grusome prospect. Abortion should be completely outlawed except in cases of rape or in some cases, incest.
Locke
Locke said:If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby...
Murder clearly is the illegal killing of a person. So clearly, you are lying, you are bearing false witness, a known sin.Locke said:Abortion is clearly an act of murder.
Or to abort it.If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby
"small child"? Ah, hyperbole, revisionist linguistic deception. You are again bearing false witness.and choosing to just kill it without giving the small child
Nope, of course it isn't. Your emotional outburst has little to do with reality.a chance to live is an absolutely grusome prospect.
Ah, so the embryou of getus, the "child" [sic] resulting from rape or incest somehow isn't like, and aborting it is not a problem?Abortion should be completely outlawed except in cases of rape or in some cases, incest.
Locke
Locke said:Abortion is clearly an act of murder. If a woman or girl is responsible enought to have sex, than she is responsible enough to have a baby and choosing to just kill it without giving the small child a chance to live is an absolutely grusome prospect. Abortion should be completely outlawed except in cases of rape or in some cases, incest.
Locke
Snoozin said:I respect a pro-life person's stance, even though I don't agree with it (I'm very much pro-choice).
But one thing has always puzzled me about this argument. When people say abortion is murder and should be completely illegal *except* in cases or rape or incest, they've agreed that murder is permissible under certain circumstances. How do they come to this conclusion and how do they determine what qualifies as justifiable reasons for murder?
In addition, they are talking about circumstances that happen to the woman, not the fetus, so they are excusing murder based on the woman's status. ?? It doesn't make logical sense to me.
So? It is not anybody's job to take that decision away from the woman.ravens24 said:Yes...good question. Heres an answer....
How would you feel if you had to give birth to YOUR FATHER'S CHILD!(incest) Pretty sick and wierd huh? That could ruin your life(emotional,physical,psychological problems...etc)
How would you feel if you gave birth to the child of the person you had sex with? You should be able to accept the consequence and decide to give that child a good life, whether with you or with somebody else.
You may say that having the child in the second example may also cause problems in in a persons life... but can you seriously say I don't want to give a life to a child because I made a choice i regret. That shows total selfishness and malice.
Nope, there is no "must" involved. You might WISH for her to do so. She has no such duty.If you made the choice to have sex then you must first accept the possibility of pregnancy and have the child due to your poor judgement.
Sure it is. And no, the woman doesn't need an excuse. All she has to do is decide that she doesn't want to remain pregnant. That is the only reason needed.Why deny life? Because you didnt mean it? Not an excuse people.
No, it should not be a given (ignoring for now your revisionist linguistic claptrap).because your rights and free will were violated? That is an excuse. a person must be really loving to have the child caused by rape. But it should be a given that you cannot deny life because you dont want to.
:roll: GAWD. Another one of those ignorant nonsense postulations. "Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. YOU example is outright false.Denying life = not letting one live
Murder=taking away someones life
It certainly IS alive.you can say that the fetus isnt alive
What mistake? The embryo implanted where it wasn't wanted. That's the embryo's mistake, not the woman's.but you are still denying something to live.. think about it..maybe even pray about it...give life when YOU made the mistake.
ravens24 said:well i think sex should only be done in marriage and you can use a condom then but do what you wish
-pz
Ah, so you have no objection to the 25% of abortions that happen to married women, nor the 58% that happen after the couple used contraception? That's good to know, at least.ravens24 said:well i think sex should only be done in marriage and you can use a condom then but do what you wish
-pz
Next time you encounter the professor, remind her that the objective of the abortion procedure is to deliberately kill the living, growing, developing human unborn child which is residing in it's mother's womb. Nothing hypothetical about that. It's actual. It's final.IValueFreedom said:I pose a question for you...
What if the woman having sex is ignorant of the fact that a baby can result from it. Is she then morally responsible for the baby, if she didn't know it was possible.
So... for an example, say a woman is diagnosed that she will never in her life become pregnant, something is wrong with her body. 100% she cannot have a baby. Then, as she is not able to have a baby or the reprocussions of her actions, would it not be fair to say, have as much sex as you want since nothing will ever come out of it.
Now, say that same women got pregnant. The doctors screw up or her body heals itself or it is just plain a miracle, is she then morally responsible to have the baby?
I would say she is not always. Here's why:
Let's say that you wake up from a deep sleep in a room that is not yours, with tubes coming out of your arms. These tubes drop to the ground, travel along the floor, and then climb up a bed next to you where they enter the arm of another man.
A doctor comes in and tells you that this man lying next to you has a problem with his liver, and you're the only one in the world that has the same blood that can save him. The doctor then tells you that he can fix the man, but it will take 9 months, so until then, you have to stay in this bed with these tubes coming out of your arm. You can't leave, take a break, or have the same life you once did while you're connected to this helpless man.
Are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?
Now what if the doctor told you that instead of 9 months, it is going to be for the rest of your life. Your life as you know it is over. The rest of your days will be spent in a bed, next to a helpless man. Now are you morally responsible to keep this man alive?
I do not think you are. There was no consent, explicit nor tacit, so one cannot judge you negatively for taking out the tubes therefore killing this helpless man.
Now what if the doctor said instead of 9 months, it was 3 hours. In 3 hours this helpless man will be able to get up and live a full, good life. Are you morally responsible then? Is 3 hours of lying in a room worth it to save someone's life, even though you hadn't agreed to it explicitly nor tacitly?
Do you see my point? If it were a lifetime, then nobody could say you're immoral for taking the tubes out of this helpless man, but if it were 3 hours, even though you have no obligation to this person, most would generally think that it was an immoral act.
On one end, you have a minimally decent samaritain, who helps others when it is of little or no hinderance upon themself. And on the other end, you have an unreasonable request, one that any person could choose to end if they do not feel like making a huge self sacrifice.
Now, where do you draw the lines? Up until what point is it a minimally decent samaritan who is morally obligated to keep this man alive? 3 hours? 2 days? 4 months? 15 months? 5 years?
At the same time, when is it morally acceptable to take the tubes out of your arms and say, this is unfair. This is not what I want, and what you're asking is unreasonable. 2 months? 5 months? 3 years? 10 years?
The point is that this point is subjective. Everyone in this situation must find their own path. There is definative answer for all people. So, as such, It is possible that someone who is 100% ignorant that they can have a baby feels that 9 months is too long to ask for something she doesn't want nor censented to.
*This idea is not my own, it is from an MIT philosphy/ethics professor. Well, I believe that where she teaches.
I just thought I'd give you that to read over and think about.
You might want to pose this question to Scott Peterson who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the death of the unborn child his wife was carrying in her womb when he murdered her. He was separately convicted in the killing of his wife.Ryanmodcon said:How do you kill something that was never born?
There are varying types and degrees of homicide. However, prior to Roe v. Wade, the crime was "performing an illegal abortion". The abortionist was charged with this crime and prosecuted. The mother was never charged.Snoozin said:I respect a pro-life person's stance, even though I don't agree with it (I'm very much pro-choice).
But one thing has always puzzled me about this argument. When people say abortion is murder and should be completely illegal *except* in cases or rape or incest, they've agreed that murder is permissible under certain circumstances. How do they come to this conclusion and how do they determine what qualifies as justifiable reasons for murder?
In addition, they are talking about circumstances that happen to the woman, not the fetus, so they are excusing murder based on the woman's status. ?? It doesn't make logical sense to me.
Fantasea said:You might want to pose this question to Scott Peterson who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the death of the unborn child his wife was carrying in her womb when he murdered her. He was separately convicted in the killing of his wife.
Huh? Didn't you just say that sex was fine within a marriage? As such, the unwanted pregnancies that may occur in marriage are also accepted as candidates for abortions, right? So why are you spewing that nonsense above?ravens24 said:Thanks for putting words in my mouth and lying steen.
No, you are lying.Fantasea said:Next time you encounter the professor, remind her that the objective of the abortion procedure is to deliberately kill the living, growing, developing human unborn child which is residing in it's mother's womb. Nothing hypothetical about that. It's actual. It's final.
When you finish laughing, why don't you tell me. (That is, if you can.)vergiss said:So the American legal system is contradictory? That's amusing to know, but proves what, exactly?Originally Posted by Fantasea
You might want to pose this question to Scott Peterson who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the death of the unborn child his wife was carrying in her womb when he murdered her. He was separately convicted in the killing of his wife.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?